Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (60990)	10/29/2001 5:38:26 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, Since AMD parts were priced lower than Intel parts Intel had to move to counter them. Had they stayed there and warred by marketing methods then we would have a different chip ecology and far higher prices with both AMD and Intel making more money. Intel chose not to do this. Intel felt they were able to totally capable of extinguishing AMD off the face of the earth. IBM, CPQ, GTW etc sense a stick here and they bought AMD parts and beat lower prices out of Intel with that stick. Dell made a decision to take advantage of the game IBM and CPQ and GTW played by staying with intel. Now the parts are totally commoditised there is not reason for them to buy AMD...unless intel tries tp up the prices and then see how fast IBM, CPQ,GTW and maybe even dell start to sell AMD parts again. There is not doubt, Intel miscaalculated and it cost them billiosn, they stayed profitabel, but at a far lower level than if they had not tried and failed to extinguish AMD. In effect intel made huge manegrial error and their SH are now paying for it. It is academic that AMD loses $$ today and Intel makes money. Without Intels actions of price war then AMD would make money and Intel would have made $25 billion more....but AMD would be far stronger than it is today. That is why Intel warred against AMD, to kill it ot weaken it. They did not kill AMD, they have weakened it Bill

To: Elmer who wrote (60990)	10/29/2001 5:41:07 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Respond to of 275872

Elmer, Re: Show me one time where Intel sold processors cheaper than AMD. If you ignore the fraudulent <g> model rating AMD is selling its processor for a significant price premium over Intel's right now (e.g. nearly 50%(!) for the 1.53 GHz Athlon XP over the 1.5 GHz P4). Don't tell me that the model rating does count in this comparison? Andreas

To: Elmer who wrote (60990)	10/29/2001 6:13:53 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re...Business Week has the same right to be wrong as you have. <<<<<< So, you aren't going to provide a link. I have another from your own Intellabee group. Wanna Bill, Re: "Without AMD Intel would have kept prices a lot higher and had a far better ASP." No, Bill. The downturn in the economy has forced Intel to lower prices to maintain processor demand. If AMD didn't exist, Intel would have still lowered prices in this situation. With AMD, Intel probably lowered their prices more than they would have otherwise, but AMD is not the major contributor to the price cuts. You just wish they were.<<<<<<<< Even wanna admits Intel started the price war. So now I have business week, Wanna, and most of the AMD posters. Plus I think I have Tench wobbling on the fence. Who do you have, besides yourself? Show me one time where Intel sold processors cheaper than AMD.<<<<<<< I believe afger Intel dropped their prices today, all of Intels P4 are cheaper than a comparable XP, as we speak. Also, it seems to me, when AThlon introed the 1 ghz, Intel introed theirs 2 days later and had it priced cheaper; except it wasn't in stock. And AMD's price doesn't include those costs? What can I do with reasoning(?) like this?<<< Amd doesn't AFAIK pay a percentage of other peoples adds. Intel also AFAIK offers engineering services to Dell and other OEMs. And Intel has the name brand; are you arguing with that?